Apparently there IS a plan, and our new sponsors Utilita have heard them....

[urlhttp://utilita.co.uk/news/61/utilita-announces-new-partnership-with-bradford-bulls-2017[/url

Taken from T+A dated 13th December 2016, doesn't really give any details as such but the last paragraph is interesting, and throughout no talk from Roberts about 'saving the Bulls' and allowing 'RL to prosper'. It's all about BPA, improving a ground, leaving a legacy from him and BPA:

[iHe was back in Bradford last week and is believed to have held talks with the council regarding the future of Horsfall Stadium.

Roberts has pumped money into Avenue but wants to leave a legacy for the future as a self-sufficient community club. Under his ownership, they have set up a new academy and there are big plans to develop the ground.

He is due to return to England again at the end of next month for Avenue’s community benefit society annual meeting.

There has been frequent talk of a link with Avenue and the Bulls – and news of Roberts’ interest will lift fans who are becoming increasingly anxious as the administration period stretches into a fifth week.

Pettit’s optimism for a swift resolution is not matched by Odsal supporters. There are also thought to be concerns within some of the interested parties about the process.

Creditors owed money by the club must still vote on whether to accept the winning bid.

But any deal promising to pay them back in the shortest time is more likely to be of the speculative property-based variety and would not necessarily be the best for safeguarding rugby league in Bradford.[/i

Sat looking at Odsal from the stand on Sunday it is a massive stadium, and far far to big for what we need.
However with regards to developing it I cant see what use it would be other than land fill as there isn't a lot of "building land" its a massive bowl with a rim around the top that you could maybe put bars and restaraunts around it.
The land at the back of the stadium is also an old landfill site so I don't know how you would go about building on that..

The only development plan I can see is build a smaller say 15k seater (you never know we may need it in years to come) stadium on Dunnies and fill Odsal in.

talk of a Wembley of the North has been pie in the sky for 80 years, The RFL couldn't organise a bun fight in a bakery let alone finance and build a national RL stadium.
Speaking of which when you look at Murrayfield, Cardiff, and Twickers and the crowds, you have to be envious RU is $hit but them boys have it sorted.
Maybe we should poach their marketing staff and top brass they like poaching our players and coaches.

As I keep saying it won't be long before we see if Cha-Lo are serious about keeping us up or not.

The Toovey visa will he/won't he stay saga will be a massive marker. If he goes back without becoming head coach then it'll be obvious we were being taken for a ride. I can't believe that Cha-Lo would be daft enough to do that though so I'm keeping my powder dry for now.

Agree mate it's huge!! Wouldn't mind a ground like Leigh's or Warrington's to be honest! Less walking to the loo's too



In terms of development there was talks when Sawrij was involved about turning it into a recycling plant of sorts. Which would be okay. I think with today's technology etc it should be possible to build on it now. I mean after all they built Odsal Stadium on a landfill site? So why can't they build on it again? Just my train of thought though

Not long ago there was talks about Khan? (I think it was Khan) wanting to build a hotel/curry house up there. Prime location for anything due to close road links and motorway links.

I would love a national RL stadium up north! But as you say won't happen until someone at the RFL gets a grip. They have it sorted but it took them decades. And like life in general, the rich will always get what they want at the expense of the poor. Sport uses that analogy. We'll never be as big as RU now but we need to strive to be the best we can be!

Gutted though seeing Ford, Farrell and Te'o linking up in RU seen as though all started from an RL background!!

You must be the only person alive who even considered that Roberts or anybody might be a benevolent sugar daddy. The reality is that there's never been a hint of one. Surely you know this?


You're confused again. Nobody was offering to take over the company, ever. Offering to buy the assets of the old business was as far as any bid went.


No idea what that even means. The only connection that springs to mind is that the company in NZ went tits owing far more than Green's main company when that went tits. Is that what you meant?


What cases? Name them.


You're confusing civil liability with criminal offences. Are you claiming Marc Green committed criminal offences, and is going to be prosecuted?


Your belief that there is, or even may be an altruistic sugar daddy is touching but mad. I wish there was, but surely even the most harebrained person never mistook any of those bidders for one?

If the RFL "pulled the Odsal lease from the deal" then if it was an important factor for any bidder, the RFL factually scuppered that bid. They needed to find out what the bidder was after, and then say yes or no. The tactic of saying "Buy the club and commit to being the new owner first, and THEN we'll talk" just doesn't fly. Surely you can understand that a bidder MUST know, in FULL, what they are buying into? If the RFL cannot or will not tell them, then how can you be critical if they pull out?


Newsflash: we weren't saved. We died. The new lot are starting from minus scratch, in a league we can't hack, with no money.

not does it allow him to seek work. If all the talk in the T&A and on boards hasn't set a few alarm bells ringing around the club, it certainly should. Or it might set a few ringing at the border agency and if they pursue it, it might mean he has to go back to Australia to re-apply.

I'm hoping you're right Bulliac. I guess we'll find out before long.

Got to admit thats a worry in back of my mind. variation on last years bait and switch where mullaney and nielsen were signed up whilst season tickets were on sale then as soon as majority had bought season tickets, club decided they were both uneccessary.

This time equivalent would be Toovey and Phoenix not getting visas and much talked about reinforcements never arriving.

Mullaney gave no indication he wasn't coming back till he told the club that the wife wanted to stop in Australia had nothing to do with the club they were as shocked as anyone as flights were booked.

Mullaney situation I had some sympathy for club but it was decision not to take up 2nd year option on Nielsen that really annoyed.

Isn't it quite feasible that Neilaon was signed and promised a 2nd year if we got promoted? Which would have suited player and club ideally, am sure Neiloan wanted to play SL and am equallly syre club knew we couldn't afford him if still in Champ. IMO Opinion he was brought over early to ensure promotion

when club announced nielsen they said he'd signed on 1 and a half year deal, irrespective of league we were in. They then used him in advertising for 2016 season tickets. It was only after bulk of season tickets had been sold that there was any mention of him possibly not returning and when it was eventually announced, it was made clear that the club had an option on him for the second year and had chosen not to take it up.

[urlhttp://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/14206924.Nielsen_return_Down_Under_confirmed/[/url

To be honest Green and Ferres were a bit naughty in the season ticket
Marketing department though were they not?

This year's campaign was a blinder a few weeks before admin.

I never said they would be benevolent. Read what I have put, have I ever said this anywhere? No. If Roberts was serious about RL in Bradford he would have bought the Bulls outright. Same with Sawrij. Again they just wanted the land that Odsal was on and the lease for the stadium in order to develop the land.



Yes they were offering to buy the company. How could they not be? The company was in admin. It is known fact that there were bids in to buy the company out of administration. However the bids were deemed to not be paying the creditors enough of the debt to consider a sale. The assets were sold after liquidation, why do you think Cha-Low had to buy some back from the administrators and from Thorne?



You said this on page 5 - "[iCertainly, the creditors won't now get a penny from Cha-Low so I'm struggling to see what's "better.[/i"

I replied with - "[iObviously the creditors won't get anything from Cha-Low as they created a brand new company

What ties do they have to the Marc Green owned company?[/i"

Meaning why would the creditors get anything from Cha-Low? They didn't buy the club out of admin. We were liquidated. They have no ties to the old company so why would they pay creditors anything? And when a club is liquidated all the debts go with it. Surely you knew this? But don't let that stop you from putting words in my mouth.



Well considering the fraud team from HMRC are investigating him I am sure they have a bloody good reason too. He committed fraud with his old company and allegedly committed fraud with the Bulls. Not paying tax is a criminal offence? Well on that I'm not sure, I always thought it was but fraud definitely is.



Yes I believe, based on information I have been told. I am aware that on this forum many people 'claim' to be in the know a lot, throw it in your face and never give anything away. That is why I don't constantly bang on about things I hear or am told on here.





Of course I know it's an important factor because it was the ONLY factor the bidders were bothered about. So your saying that if the lease was part of the deal and the RFL didn't pull it from the deal. The Bulls would have been bought by either Roberts or Sawrij? But the club was still on the table? All they had to do was provide a financially secure Bradford Bulls for 2 years (until 2019 when the rugby lease runs out) and then negotiations could be done. Fact is they wanted the lease and ground and weren't bothered about the RL or the club. Funny, I remember a lot of people on here saying the same thing as me when the bids were coming in. A lot of concern about their intentions and just wanting the land.



Yes the company owning the Bulls did die. Yup they started from scratch. We will see if we can hack it in due time. Again you keep mentioning we don't have money. Could you please provide proof of this? Or are you making an educated guess?

I will apologise. We weren't saved you are correct. My mistake. I should have said professional RL in Bradford was saved and the brand was saved. We still have the Bulls. Not a brand new identity all together.

Also I'd appreciate less of the condescending tone please. I am an adult with a degree in Sports Development which is all about strategies, plans, making connections and links mixed in with Sports Business Management. So I do have some idea. All I am trying to do here is share my knowledge and experience on these matters.

Nobody offered to buy the company. the reason is because if they did, they buy the debts. As long as the company lives, it owes the debts.

Everybody offered to buy the company's business from the administrator. Then, if agreed, the new company takes over the business. But the old company is wound up and liquidated.

The asset sale is straightforward, the RFL bought them so as to be able to sell them on to a new owner.


Er, if they deemed the return of 6 league points was enough value for money. If they had the money.


Neither of us know the motives of the bidders, you are just speculating. The RFL seem to have thought enough about the motives of a couple of them at least to engage in lengthy talks. But yes, in principle, and as I've always said, unless a sugar daddy comes along, only people with a plan to make some money are likely to be in the frame. I would take the view that it is up to the RFL to ensure that any deal includes copper bottomed safeguards for rugby league and as they hold that whip hand (as no membership of RFL, no deal) it wouldn't matter much that a buyer wasn't mad keen on RL - if they were obligated.


How could I have "proof"? I'm hardly privy to financial info on random geezers from NZ. They clearly have no substantial money THAT THEY WANT TO SPEND ON BRADFORD BULLS is how I would put it, I conclude this from the snippets that we read about such as having to borrow the HMRC deposit, and the alleged continuing cash bailouts by the RFL. They may have millions in their bank,or nothing, I don't know, and i don't care, the only thing that matters to me is whether they are prepared to plough in the sort of money that would make the difference. I see no sign, and so base my opinion on their actions.


Fair enough.

At least Woody's finally pinned his colours to the mast https://scontent.fman2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=59023E52

At least Woody's finally pinned his colours to the mast https://scontent.fman2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/ ... e=59023E52

I heard a bit of a rumour yesterday that may be completely unfounded but.....

Does anyone think that Chalmers and Lowe are some how involved with Koukash?
The previous and current ties to Salford are there for all to see.

I heard something else yesterday but don't want to get crucified on here if i'm wrong.

What are your thoughts?? It would in a fashion make sense of the silence for now..

I would think it had some legs if we seemed to have a pot to p*ss in. Since it seems we don't, I can't think Koukash is involved.

can someone tell me whats going on then?????? ha ha ha

:132ga4a6

For the millionth [well, it feels like it.. time, the rugby lease:132ga4a6 does NOT, continues to pay the agreed rent to the council then RL is safe at Odsal for the next 100 years or so. None of that, to the best of my knowledge, precludes the owners of the club introducing commercial aspects to the site in order to gain better income from it, but I can't imagine the RFL, or indeed the council, sanctioning anything which prevents RL being played there. Unless, of course, another more manageable ground could be found or built within the city.

You worded it much better than I! I meant like we are not necessarily tied to Odsal after 2019 as we don't have to play there. RFL own the lease not the Bulls so once our contract to play the majority of our games there goes we don't have it as a millstone? Could be wrong though. I mean you seem to know more in this aspect of it than I.

No I agree, the RFL won't want anything preventing RL from being played there. But would I be right in saying that after 2019 and that Odsal settlement game deal runs out, the Bulls could decide against playing there. Therefore the RFL would have no choice but to sell the lease for development otherwise it becomes a black hole they are paying for.

My own personal thoughts on the matter is that sooner or later something will be done with Odsal and it wouldn't surprise me if the RFL does follow through and move themselves to Odsal!

that it would have been 'front-loaded' as in if they'd reneged on the deal in, say 2005, they'd have had much more to pay back than now, when it's nearly up anyway. Though, potentially that may not be the case.

Theoretically, the club could decide it wasn't worth the money, particularly as we have to pay the very expensive upkeep, though clearly, that would mean upsetting the game's governing body and whether that is wise is a moot point. It was always said, at the time the 'settlement' deal was struck that the club might need to bring in capital from outside the game to do any serious upgrades. To me, that probably meant retail, like a supermarket on the site, or some such, or some other smaller industrial use for part of the land - it is quite enormous, let's not forget.

As for us moving out and the RFL selling on their lease to an outsider, we shouldn't forget that the council are the landlords and the RFL have a lease to a rugby ground, so their plans may well be limited, mainly due to the council wanting to be first in the queue to gain money if the stadium is not to remain a rugby ground. I'm no lawyer, and have never seen the lease, but I'd guess that selling their lease for a totally non-rugby purpose might well break the terms they took it out on. So, basically I'm saying that, if the ground were to be totally sold off, even as part of a deal which got us a new ground, then I believe the council would need to fully involved.

All that happens come May 2019 is this:

The tenant (i.e. the RFL) no longer has to use the ground for playing rugby league.
Subject to planning permission, they can after then do whatever they want.

Except they can't, because they now have a sub-tenant (us)
So they have to stick to whatever terms are in our sub-lease for as long as our sub-lease lasts. As we are in occupation and unless we agree, they can't interfere with our occupation.

Just to add to the conspiracy theory but is that not our chairman sat with Marwan?